Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Teacher

An Education Centre

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008144-001

11/11/2016

The Complainant taught book keeping on a part time basis at a premises managed by the Respondent.

Following a decision to cut the course from the school curriculum the Complainant raised a grievance of bullying and harassment under the Respondent’s Dignity at Work Policy and was unhappy with the manner in which her complaint was dealt with and the time that it took to deal with it.

A number of aspects raised in the complaint form did not form part of the oral hearing.

At the hearing the Complaint was as follows:

The Complainant was unhappy with the decision to cut her course.

She raised a grievance with the management and she was unhappy with the manner in which this grievance was dealt with; both in the manner in which it was handled but also the delays in meeting her.

A teaching vacancy was filled by another staff member without advertisement. The Complainant should have been considered for this role. The reason that she believes she was not was because the Chairperson was biased towards the staff member who was appointed.

The Chairperson of the board should not have dealt with her grievance as he was biased against the Complainant and despite declarations to the contrary he did not resign from the board.

The Complainant’s course was cut because the numbers fell below the threshold of 6 students. Once a course falls below the threshold the funding for the course is not available because the course is not viable. In relation to roll call registers produced by the Complainant at the hearing, these are the property of the Respondent and the originals are no longer on file. However, other sign in registers, retained by the Respondent, that the students were obliged to fill in, indicate that the threshold of 6 students was not present. The registers upon which the Complainant seeks to rely have been tampered with and do not represent the actual numbers of students that attended the course, who had to be registered in the school administration.

The complaint was made in November 2015. The Respondent accepts that it did not meet the Complainant until March 2016, however this was due to board members (who are voluntary members) not being available for that period hence the board meetings were not quorate. However from March 2016 until the grievance process concluded and the outcome was communicated in September 2016, the Respondent made every effort to progress to hear and progress her complaint.

The Chairperson of the Board resigned his position from the board on 8 March. He did not stay on as a board member after this date, despite allegations to the contrary.

I accept the evidence of the Respondent that there were insufficient numbers of students on the book keeping course, for it to be viable. This evidence for this is not the contents of roll registers but rather the numbers of students who were registered with the school to take the course. Therefore I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

As the complaint was one of bullying and harassment I find that the delay in meeting with the Complainant to discuss her grievance between November 2015 and March 2016 to be too long. This was disrespectful particularly given her long years of service. While I accept that from March 2016 onwards that the Respondent did make reasonable effort to expedite the grievance process, I find the complaint in relation to the delays between November 2015 and March 2016, to be well founded. Complaints such as these should be taken seriously and acted upon as quickly as possible, which did not occur here and the explanation for it was inadequate.

I do not accept that there is any evidence to support the complaint that the ex-chairperson of the board acted impartially and I do not accept the hearsay based opinion about the circumstances of appointment of another staff member to have any basis in fact.

As the Respondent stated at the hearing the Complainant had a right to appeal under the Respondent’s Dignity at Work Policy and I am of the view that she should have been informed by letter following the outcome of the grievance process, however she was not.

I find that the complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to be well founded in one respect; the failure to consider her complaint during the period November 2015-March 2016, was excessively long given the nature of the complaint and in respect of this finding, I award the Complainant €1500.00.